• No results found

The impact of the big five personality dimensions on decision-making style: the moderating role of mindfulness

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The impact of the big five personality dimensions on decision-making style: the moderating role of mindfulness"

Copied!
27
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

The impact of the big five personality dimensions on decision-making style: the

moderating role of mindfulness

Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration University of Amsterdam School of Business and Economics

Student: Julia Söderlund Student number: 11739479

E-mail: julia.soderlund@student.uva.nl Supervisor: Olga Kowalska

(2)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to provide empirical evidence for the moderating effect of mindfulness in the relationship between different personality dimensions and decision-making styles. Existing

literature suggests decision-making to be an essential part of human personality. Furthermore, mindfulness has been linked to improved decisional outcomes. Thus, drawing from existing literature, four hypotheses are proposed regarding the interaction effect of mindfulness and personality trait on decision-making style. The data of this study was collected with an online survey in the spring of 2020, which resulted in a sample of 120 respondents. The findings of this

research did not find enough statistical evidence to support the proposed hypothesis of the moderating effect of mindfulness. Moreover, this thesis contributes to the academic body of

organisational behaviour literature.

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Julia Söderlund who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Table of Content

1. Introduction ____________________________________________________________ 4 2. Theoretical Framework___________________________________________________ 5 2.1 Mindfulness_____________________________________________________________ 5 2.2 The Big Five Personalities_________________________________________________ 7 2.3 Decision-making styles____________________________________________________ 8 2.4 Hypotheses formulation___________________________________________________ 9 3. Research Methods________________________________________________________ 11 3.1 Sample & Procedures____________________________________________________ 11 3.2 Measurements__________________________________________________________ 12 3.3 Analysis_______________________________________________________________ 14 4. Results_________________________________________________________________ 15

4.1 Preliminary Analysis_____________________________________________________ 15 4.2 Descriptives_____________________________________________________________16 4.3 Regression Analysis & Moderation_________________________________________ 16 5. Discussion_______________________________________________________________19 5.1 Contributions & Implications______________________________________________ 21 5.2 Limitations & Future Research_____________________________________________22 6. Conclusion_______________________________________________________________23 7. References_______________________________________________________________24 8. Appendix________________________________________________________________26

(4)

1. Introduction

The popularisation of mindfulness practices in Western culture has lead to extensive research on the benefits of mindfulness for individuals and communities as well as psychological and physiological health. Mindfulness consists of paying attention to the present moment without imposing positive or negative associations to the accusing moment. Mindfulness can be described as an attitude of acceptance and openness (Guilk, 2009). Recently, the positive effects of

mindfulness have been extended to organisational and managerial literature. Mindfulness has been related to various positive work-outcomes such as improved decision-making ability, increased job satisfaction, and decreased work-related burnouts (Good et al., 2016; Guilk 2009) . From the organisational point of view, it is essential to understand the mechanisms of mindfulness that may lead to improved self-efficacy, and the regulation of thoughts, emotions, and behaviours in the work environment. So far, the management research of mindfulness has been promising; it has been researched that leaders participating in mindfulness training have improved their attentiveness and decision-making ability (Reb & Atkins, 2015). Moreover, improved decision-making abilities can hold the potential for organisational gains, such as hiring the right employees, choosing the right investment project or choosing the appropriate strategy for a firm (Damasio, 1994). However, the research of mindfulness has mostly been investigated with medical patient populations or student samples, and even though the early results have been promising for work-related outcomes too, it is valuable to further examine mindfulness in a work environment in order to find support for the implementation of mindfulness-based programs and practices as part of organisations’ wellness initiatives.

Furthermore, the literature suggests that individuals experience mindfulness with a varying frequency, and some individuals have a higher tendency to be mindful in their daily lives. This variation in the levels of experienced mindfulness has been partly explained with different

personality types (Giluk, 2009; Walsh et al., 2009). Namely, mindfulness has been investigated in relation to the widely popular Big Five Personality types in order to understand the differences in mindfulness between individuals further. Additionally, the Big Five Personality model is well-researched. Thus, prior literature of these personality types has been linked to various concepts such as work-related outcomes, and decision-making styles. Thus, it presents many opportunities for further research on mindfulness and its effect on behavioural patterns and outcomes.

(5)

The positive effects of mindfulness have also been researched in decision-making situations and linked to improved decisional outcomes. Mindfulness is said to reduce anxiety, lead to

improved evaluation of decision alternatives, and decrease preconceived opinions in a decisional scenario (Nygren and White 2005). Therefore, the goal of this thesis is to investigate the

relationship between mindfulness, decision-making styles, and the Big Five Personalities. In the past, these concepts have been researched on their own or with a relation to just one of the concepts, however, in this study I will integrate these three separate concepts, which leads to the following research question; To what extent can mindfulness moderate the relationship between personality types and the related decision-making styles.

In this paper, I will conduct quantitative research on the moderation effect of mindfulness on the relationship between the Big Five Personality dimensions and different decision-making styles. It has been researched that a decision-making style is an intrinsic part of our personality, and therefore it is valuable to research whether mindfulness can have an impact on the district style we behave when confronted with a decision (Riaz and Batool, 2012). Furthermore, this thesis also contributes to the vast body of organisational behaviour literature by identifying how mindfulness can be used to improve employees’ decision-making abilities, which in turn, can lead to improved organisational performance.

2. Literature review

2.1 Mindfulness

The popular media and scholars use the term mindfulness in a variety of contexts, and the definition often refers to different related constructs, traits, practices and processes. Mindfulness can be challenging to define and conceptualise due to its long history and recent popularisation in Western culture and research (Sala et al., 2019). The definition, I will use in this thesis is derived from a variety of research papers, and is as follows: Mindfulness is a process of purposefully being

aware of external and internal stimuli of the present moment with an attitude of acceptance, openness, and non-judgement. Mindfulness includes self-regulation of attention with a specific focus on the present feelings, thoughts, and bodily sensations without preconceived ideas or self-relevant cognitive manipulations which prevent one from experiencing the moment as it truly is

(Brown & Ryan, 2003; Cardaciotto, et al., 2008; Lakey, et al., 2007; Walsh, et al., 2009). Examples of mindfulness are paying attention to the position of your hands and feet, feeling the temperature

(6)

of the air on your skin without further evaluation, or paying attention to bodily sensations while walking down the street to catch a train for your morning commute. Mindfulness encourages one to experience each moment as unique, with the eyes of a beginner, as it would be the first time

experiencing a particular event, such as your daily commute (Brown et al., 2003). This definition describes mindfulness as a state of consciousness, and empirical evidence suggests that there is considerable variation in the average frequency with which individuals experience these states of consciousness over time. This suggests that mindfulness can be trained and cultivated through training such as mindfulness meditation, mindful walking, yoga, and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Fredrickson at al., 2008; Giluk, 2010). Additionally, mindfulness as a state of consciousness varies from person to person, which suggests some persons have higher tendencies towards mindfulness. In the literature, mindfulness is viewed not only as a state of consciousness but can also be looked as a trait. When speaking of mindfulness trait, the concept is treated as a stable individual difference such as personality traits. In order to capture the differences in mindfulness between individuals, this thesis measures the trait mindfulness (Glomb et al., 2011). Even though, mindfulness has been defined with a variety of wordings, virtually this state of consciousness involves experiential processing involving a focus on the internal and external stimulus itself without deriving meaning from it. In experiential processing individuals de-centre and simply observe the stimuli instead of acting on it in a habitual way with emotions, mental images, self-talk or actions (Good et al., 2016). Response flexibility is the ability to pause before taking action to an environmental stimulus. It has been shown that mindfulness can increase individuals’ response flexibility by increasing thoughtful consideration of different ways to react rather than impulsively responding and jumping to conclusions that may be untrue due to our internal bias generated by previous experiences and judgements (Glomb et al., 2011; Strauss et al. 2016). In our day-to-day life, we may complete tasks without remembering it because of our automatic responses. Evidence suggests that mindfulness disrupts learned mental models as well as automatic action and thought patterns as individuals move from heuristic modes of information processing to more systematic modes. Studies on mindfulness involving MRI techniques have observed increased activity in brain regions associated with emotional and attention regulation, focus, and heightened awareness of internal bodily sensations, during mindfulness exercises (Fredrickson at al., 2008; Brown et al., 2007; Cardacitto et al., 2008). Furthermore, mindfulness trait is negatively correlated with depression symptoms in healthy young adults. Additionally, mindfulness treatments have bee associated with decreased blood pressure and physical health

(7)

complaints, increased melatonin levels and better sleep quality, reduced anxiety, depression, and substance abuse (Glomb et al., 2011).

Mindfulness affects individuals’ self-regulation by separating one’s ego from events, emotions, and experiences. This process is called de-centring, and it helps individuals’ to

understand events and emotions separately, as they are, instead of being reflections of the relative image of self. Through de-centring, individuals involved in a negative situation can see the event as less threatening to their self-worth when their ego is separated from the event (Strauss et al., 2016). So far, mindfulness has been linked to reduced stress and burnout, increased external awareness at work, more positive work-place relationships, and increased adaptability to rapidly changing environments (Good et al., 2016).

2.2 The Big Five Personalities

The big five personality model of McCrae & Costa consists of five different personality traits, namely; Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness to experience (McCrae & Costa 1990). Since the big five model is well-researched and established, researches have investigated the relationship between mindfulness and the big five. Academic literature already exists of trait mindfulness in relation to the big five personality traits, which I will elaborate further in this chapter. For this research, I will be examining two of these personality traits, neuroticism and extraversion, and their relationship with different decision-making styles while incorporating mindfulness trait as a moderator for the model.

Neuroticism as a personality trait has been linked to a variety of unpleasant moods such as stress, nervousness, guilt and anger. Additionally, individuals with neurotic tendencies are more likely to experience anxiety, self-consciousness, depression, impulsiveness, and vulnerability. These individuals may feel easily discouraged by events, panic in uncertain situations, and appear rather shy and reluctant (Giluk, 2009). Individuals scoring high on neuroticism trait have a fear of criticism and rejection, which makes them hesitant in real-life scenarios, especially when exposed to an event that could negatively reflect on their self-image. Furthermore, it is common for neurotic individuals to use inappropriate coping mechanisms such as hostile reactions and wishful thinking in order to cope with disruptive emotions and thoughts (Lommen & Engelhard & van den Hout, 2010). Generally, neuroticism has been negatively related to mindfulness and well-being, but it is

(8)

not clear whether practicing mindfulness and increasing one’s mindfulness trait may lower neurotic tendencies (Giluk, 2009).

Extraversion as a personality trait, is characterised by talkativeness and sociability. Individuals scoring high on extraversion tend to be active, alert, assertive, engaged, spontaneous, and excitement seeking (McCrae & Costa 1990). Additionally, extraversion has been described as a human-oriented personality, and it is related to positive emotions and well-being. Furthermore, research shows extraversion to be both positively and negatively related to mindfulness. Thus the research the trait mindfulness and the effect on personality has been somewhat inconsistent so far (Giluk, 2009).

2.3 Decision-making style

Decision-making plays a vital role in nearly all organisational processes, thus, improving the decision-making ability of employees can be crucial to the success of any size organisations. Due to the rapidly and unexpectedly changing internal and external environments of modern society, organisations are operating under increased pressure and uncertainty which makes it more demanding to evaluate all available information in order to reach the most optimal decision that satisfies the demands of multiple stakeholders (Smith, 2000). Furthermore, the reduced time-cycle of innovation and more complex and turbulent external environment poses more demanding requirements for continuous adaptation and change, therefore increasing the importance of

decisions within organisations (Veil, 2011). Current research shows that the effects of organisational and psychological stress reduce the ability of throughout gathering of information and evaluation of alternatives in decisional scenarios on the individual level as well as the organisational level (Smith, 2000). Furthermore, the failure of reaching the correct decision in many occasions can have a negative impact on organisational culture and limit the ability of employees to interpret the events surrounding decision situations (Nygren & White, 2005).

Decision-making style can be defined as “the learned, habitual response pattern exhibited by an individual when confronted with a decision situation” (Scott & Bruce, 1995). A General Decision Making Style questionnaire (GDMSQ) codifies decision-making behaviour into five distinct styles; The avoidant decision-making style, the dependent style, the intuitive style, the rational style, and lastly, the spontaneous decision-making style.

Until now, research has shown a decision-making style to be an integral part of the

(9)

five personalities were examined as predictors of differences in decision-making styles among a sample of university students. The study found that personality contributed between 15.4% to 28.1% variance in decision-making styles. Moreover, the trait neuroticism positively predicted the avoidant decision-making style because individuals scoring high on neuroticism trait have a tendency to experience nervousness, self-consciousness, and anxiety more often than individuals with other personality traits. Furthermore, neurotic individuals are often pre-occupied, lack self-efficacy, and have an increased fear of rejection. Therefore, this personality trait is positively related to the avoidant decision-making style, which is characterised by avoiding and procrastinating important decisions (Riaz & Batool, 2012). Furthermore both, the avoidant decision-making style and neuroticism trait have been linked to increased anxiety and depression (Riaz et al., 2007; Shoemaker, 1999).

The results of Riaz et al., study also reported extraversion to positively predict the intuitive and the spontaneous decision-making styles. In particular, extroverts have been characterised as an excitement-seeking, active and spontaneous human-oriented personality with an emphasis on feelings and emotions. The intuitive decision-making style also involves relying on emotions, feelings, and impressions about a decision situation. Furthermore, spontaneous decision-makers are able to decide on the spot in a fast and speedy manner (Nygren & White, 2005).

2.4 Hypotheses formulation

Since mindfulness has been linked to improved decision-making, it should be researched whether the relationship between personality types and decision-making styles can be strengthened or weakened by mindfulness in order to reach improved decision outcomes. Thus, I will use

mindfulness trait as a moderator in this research to examine the effect mindfulness might have on different decision-making styles. Due to the scope of this study, I am focusing on two personality types; neuroticism, and extroversion, and the decision-making styles linked to these two personality dimensions; the avoidant decision-making style, and the rational decision-making style,

respectively.

The literature shows that neuroticism personality is positively related to the avoidant decision-making style because individuals scoring high on neuroticism trait are generally pre-occupied, reluctant, and incompetent in taking initiatives, making them prone to avoiding decision-making (Lommen et al., 2010). However, the avoidant decision-decision-making style has been linked to

(10)

negative work outcomes such as fear of personal invalidity, external locus of control, and lack of self and environmental awareness. On the other hand, mindfulness has been linked to the ability to recognise one’s emotions and feelings and view them as information, separate for ones’ ego, which is positively related to decisiveness (Damasio 1994). Mindfulness has been shown to help

individuals regulate their emotions triggered by the internal conflict resulting from decisional trade-offs (Ryan et al., 2010). Furthermore, mindfulness can reduce stress which consequently improves the consideration of all relevant information and alternatives, resulting in more rational decisions. Mindfulness has also been linked to less avoidant decision making and more decisiveness, which could imply that neurotic individuals can benefit from mindfulness by weakening the relationship between neuroticism personality trait and avoidant decision making-style. Based on the theories of personality, mindfulness, and decision-making styles, the first two hypotheses are formulated:

H1a: Neuroticism personality dimension has a positive relationship with avoidant decision-making style

H1b: There is an interaction effect between Neuroticism trait and Mindfulness trait on the Avoidant making style so that the relationship between Neuroticism and the Avoidant decision-making style becomes weaker when employees show high levels of mindfulness.

In the literature, extraversion trait and mindfulness have both been linked to subjective well-being and positive emotions. Furthermore, extraversion positively predicts the rational decision-making style, which has been described as the most beneficial decision-decision-making style for individuals and organisations (Schwartz & Dacso, 2011). Additionally, mindfulness heightens one’s attention, curiosity, and receptiveness to stimuli, which suggests it should be positively related to intuitive and rational decision-making styles. Mindfulness also makes one more attentive of the environment, and more able to rethink perceptions, which decreases stress and increases ethical decision making. Furthermore, by reducing habitual response patterns, mindfulness can increase self-determination and thus, mindfulness is associated with more decisiveness (Riaz & Batool, 2012). Therefore, the following two hypotheses are formulated:

H2a: Extroversion personality dimension has a positive relationship with rational decision-making style.

(11)

H2b: There is an interaction effect between Extraversion personality trait and Mindfulness trait on the Rational decision-making style, such that the relationship between Extraversion and the

Rational decision-making style becomes stronger when employees show a high level of mindfulness.

3. Research Methods

3.1 Sample & procedures

The data collection was performed by a group of students for the University of Amsterdam, and the method used was convenience sampling. An online survey was constructed and distributed to our personal network. In total, we received 120 responses for the survey. The data collection was performed over a period of one month. The surveys that were distributed were a part of a larger study; thus, the survey measured more than the variables examined in this thesis. Of the

respondents, 62.5% were female, and 36.7% were males, with an age range between 18 and 70 years (M = 36, SD = 14.7). Furthermore, 0.8% of respondents preferred not to disclose their gender.

(12)

Neuroticism & Extroversion personalities

The survey, our group used fro data collection included multiple sub-questionnaires and started with the Big Five Personality Trait questionnaire (McCrae & Costa, 1990), which is widely used self-assessment instrument that is recognised for its scientific validity and reliability. The Cronbach’s alpha for the questionnaire was 0.751, showing sufficient reliability. Moreover, this five-factor model of personality traits consists of 44 items of measurement, and it divides human personality into five categories based on a variety of human behaviours. Firstly, the questionnaire asked a category of questions related to the stable modes and tendencies of an individual. Second, the questionnaire includes a category of questions related to temporary activities and moods. Furthermore, the third category of questions consists of evaluations of personal conduct and

reputation, and lastly, the questionnaire asks a set of questions related to individuals’ characteristics and capabilities (McCrae & Costa, 1990). The five personalities this scale measures are labelled as; openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. The Big Five is universally applied and its validity is strongly supported by empirical evidence (Mount & Barrick & Strauss, 1994). In this research paper, I will be using the Neuroticism trait and the Extroversion trait as independent variables in the model. The Big Five Personality questionnaire includes items such as “I can be moody” and “I see myself as someone who is reserved”, and the respondents were asked to answer the questionnaire on a 5-point scale from “Strongly agree” to “Strongly disagree”.

Avoidant & Rational decision-making styles

In order to measure the decision-making style of the respondents as dependent variables, I used the General Decision Making Style Questionnaire (GDMSQ) developed by Scott & Bruce in 1995 to measure individual differences in decision-making behaviour (Scott & Bruce, 1995). The scale shows sufficient reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .664. The respondents were asked to rate themselves on a 5-point Likert scale which categorises the respondents into five distinct decision-making styles. The decision-making styles in question are;

The Avoidant style: “I avoid making important decisions until the pressure is on”.

(13)

The Intuitive style: “When I make decisions, I tend to rely on my intuition”. The Rational style: “I make decisions in a logical and systematic way”. The Spontaneous style: “I generally make snap decisions”.

The avoidant decision-making style is characterised by procrastinating and avoiding important decisions (Scott and Bruce, 1995). Additionally, it has been linked to negative work outcomes, fear of personal invalidity, external locus of control, and lack of self-awareness and environmental awareness. Past research also indicates that the avoidant decision-making style is positively related to anxiety and depression (Riaz and Batool, 2012).

The rational decision-making style is characterised by a thorough search for information, alternative solutions, and evaluation of the decision in a logical manner. Moreover, rational decision-makers are said to be highly goal-oriented, and have the ability to explore many

possibilities and pros and cons of alternatives. According to research, the rational decision-making style is considered to be the most superior style. It has been linked to positive outcomes in diverse populations and multiple settings (Riaz and Batool, 2012).

Mindfulness trait

The moderating variable in this research is Mindfulness, measure as a trait rather than a state of consciousness. The trait was measured with the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) which measures five aspects of mindfulness; Observation, Description, Aware actions,

Non-judgemental inner experience, and Non-reactivity. The observation facet of the instrument relates to individuals’ sensory awareness and perception of stimuli and our world. Furthermore, the

description facet includes statements of the way we describe our experiences and express ourselves in words. The mindful actions aspect of the questionnaire measures self-awareness and actions, and the non-judgemental inner experience facet involves statements about our inner critic,

self-acceptance and empathy. Lastly, the non-reactivity aspect of the instrument measures individuals’ abilities to detach from negative emotions and consciously choose when and how to react. The questionnaire consists of 39 items, and the score provides an estimate of individuals’ mindfulness and self-awareness (Brown et al., 2007). Furthermore, the questionnaire provides us with a reliable measure of the dispositional tendency to be mindful with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.899, showing sufficient reliability, further displayed in the appendix. The FFMQ asks respondents to rate themselves on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = Never or rarely true, to 5 = very often or

(14)

always true. The items in the FFMQ include “I find myself doing things without paying attention”; “I perceive emotions without reacting to them”; “I can calm down soon after experiencing

distressing thoughts and impulses”.

Control Variables

I will use the respondents’ age and gender as control variables to rule out other possible effects on the hypothesis. Age and gender can influence the mindfulness trait, however, they should not have an influence on the personality traits since they have been researched to be constant regardless of age. However, how one perceives themselves in terms of personality, can change with age, and the scale used was based on self-assessment. Therefore, it is essential to use age as a control variable. Moreover, decision-making abilities can be improved over time, so it can be that older people are more trained in decision-making than younger folks. How were these measured? Gender was recoded for 1= male and 2= female, and all other responses were deleted.

3.3 Analysis

In order to test the hypotheses, a multiple hierarchical regression was performed by adding each group of variables in sequential steps into the regression analysis. Additionally, to test the interaction effect of the independent and moderator variables, a moderator analysis was performed with the PROCESS macro by Hayes (2018) Model 1. The already researched relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variables was tested first in order to examine how much of the variance in avoidant decision-making style can be explained by the neurotic personality trait, and how much of the variance in rational decision-making style can be explained by

extroversion.

However, preliminary analyses were conducted first to assess the data for the normality of distribution, independence of observations, possible influential outliers, and homoscedasticity. Furthermore, Cronbach’s alpha reliability was tested for each scale.

4. Results

In order to examine the four hypotheses of this study, several statistical tests were performed using SPSS. Firstly, in order to test for the reliability of the different scales in the survey, a

(15)

Cronbach’s alpha test was conducted for each scale, can be found in the appendix. In order to find support for the two hypotheses, four models were statistically tested. First, the correlation between extroversion trait and rational decision-making style, and next, the interaction effect of extroversion trait and mindfulness trait on rational decision-making style. Furthermore, the correlation was tested between neuroticism trait and the avoidant decision-making style, and lastly, a statistical test was performed for the interaction effect of neuroticism trait and mindfulness trait on the avoidant decision-making style.

4.1 Preliminary Analysis

Firstly, I performed the preliminary analysis before continuing to the linear regression between predictive and outcome variables. I tested for normality of distribution for every residual of the regression models.

The independent variables, neuroticism trait and extroversion trait, have normal bell-shaped distributions, displayed in the appendix. Furthermore, the dependent variable, rational decision-making style also has a normal bell-shaped distribution. The other dependent variable, avoidant decision-making style is not as normally distributed than the other variables. Thus, I removed some significant outliers to make the data conform more to normality. Additionally, I also deleted three significant outliers for the moderator variable, Mindfulness trait.

Furthermore, I tested for the homoscedasticity of the data in order to make sure the data are equally distributed. Additionally, I checked for the independence of observations with Durbin-Watson test and the linearity of the variables and concluded that the data are suitable for regression analysis. The results of the preliminary analysis can be found in the appendix.

4.2 Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 displays the mean, standard error, and correlation between the dependent variables, independent variables, moderator variable, and control variables. A number of important

correlations were identified in the results. The analysis displayed a significant correlation between neuroticism personality dimension and avoidant decision-making style (r = .272; p < 0.01)

indicating a weak positive linear relationship. Furthermore, extroversion trait showed a negative correlation with the avoidant decision-making style (r = -.217; p < 0.01) and neuroticism trait (r = -.272; p < 0.01), indicating weak linear relationships. Additionally, neuroticism personality trait

(16)

showed a moderately negative relationship with mindfulness trait (r = -.547; p < 0.01) and a moderately positive correlation with the avoidant decision-making style (r = .272; p < 0.01). Also, the neuroticism personality trait showed a moderate negative correlation with the control variable, age, (r = -.439; p < 0.01), indicating that as age increases, neuroticism trait decreases. Also, age as a control variable showed a moderately positive correlation with mindfulness trait (r = .374; p < 0.01), proving a moderate positive linear relationship.

TABLE 1: Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix

4.3 Regression Analysis and Moderation

Firstly, regression analysis was performed to analyse the relationship between the dependent variables and the independent variables and control variables to test whether a potentially

significant moderation effect could be found.

In order to test the Hypothesis 1a and 1b, whether mindfulness moderates the relationship between neuroticism personality trait and avoidant decision-making style, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to display the effects of neuroticism and mindfulness on the avoidant decision-making style (Wong & Mason, 1985). Table 2 represents the results of the regression analysis on the dependent variable, avoidant decision-making style. In order to examine the interaction of the variables, a total of 3 models were statistically tested.

In the first step, the predictive variable, neuroticism, was included as can be seen in model Ⅰ of Table 2. Model 1 represents the hypothesis 1a, the effect of neuroticism personality dimension on

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Avoidance 2.654 0.847 1.000 2. Rational 3.918 0.563 −0.267** 1.000 3. Neuroticism 2.831 0.741 0.272** 0.030 1.000 4. Extroversion 3.398 0.684 −0.217** −0.091 0.272** 1.000 5. Mindfulness 3.331 0.467 −0.377** 0.023 0.547** 0.386** 1.000 6. Age 36.526 14.861 −0.205* −0.111 −0.439** 0.139 0.374** 1.000 7. Gender 1.650 0.580 0.173 −0.035 0.139 −0.138 0.046 −0.022 1.000 N=114: *p < 0.05: **p < 0.01 (one-tailed). 0

(17)

the avoidant decision-making style (R2= .074; F = 8.96; p < 0.05), indicating that 7.4% of the

variance in avoidant decision-making style can be explained by the personality trait neuroticism. Next, in model Ⅱ, the independent variable was tested together with the moderator variable; neuroticism personality trait and mindfulness trait. These variables accounted for a significant amount of variance in avoidant decision-making style (R2 = .148; F = 9.67; p < 0.05). The model 2

also shows that neuroticism trait and mindfulness trait together added more explanatory power to the model than neuroticism by itself, with ΔR² = .074. This indicates that there is potentially a significant moderation effect between neuroticism and mindfulness traits on avoidant decision-making style. Lastly, the interaction effect of mindfulness and neuroticism is tested on the avoidant decision-making style and the control variables are added in model Ⅲ to show the complete model including all the variables and their interaction effect, and thus, test the Hypothesis 1b. The results of model Ⅲ however, do not add significant explanatory power to the model (R² = .183; F = 2.290; p > 0.05).

To conclude, the regression analysis highlights the positive effect of neuroticism personality type on avoidant decision-making style in Model Ⅰ (β = .104; p < 0.01), supporting Hypothesis 1a. Model Ⅱ shows a significant negative effect of mindfulness on avoidant decision-making style (β = -.632; p < 0.001) as can be expected based on the literature review. Furthermore, model Ⅲ shows a significant effect of gender on avoidant decision-making style (β = .267; p < 0.01). However, model Ⅲ does not display an interaction effect of neuroticism and mindfulness on avoidant decision-making style (β = .038; p > 0.05), thus Hypothesis 1b is does not have statistical support.

TABLE 2: Determinants of avoidance decision/making style in employees

Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Intercept 1.773*** (0.304) 4.453*** (0.910) 4.468*** (0.920) Neuroticism 0.311** (0.104) 0.108 (0.120) 0.037 (0.126) Mindfulness --- ---−0.632*** (0.203) −0.672*** (0.206) Neuroticism x Mindfulness --- --- ---0.038 (0.202) Age --- --- ---−0.003 (0.006)

(18)

N=114. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (one-tailed).

Hierarchical multiple regression results. Robust standard errors appear in parentheses. Cl = 95%

Lastly, in order to analyse the Hypothesis 2a and b, the same regression analysis was performed to examine the effects of extroversion and mindfulness on the rational decision-making style. Table 3 represents the results of the regression analysis on the dependent variable rational decision-making. A total of 3 models were tested for Hypothesis 2 as well.

First, the predictive variable, extroversion, was added in model Ⅰ, which represents the hypothesis 2a; the effect of extroversion on rational decision-making style. (R2= .008; F =.934;

p>0.05),. Since the p-value of the model is above 0.05, it can be concluded that hypothesis 1a is not statistically supported. Next, in model Ⅱ, the independent variable was tested together with the moderator variable; extroversion personality trait and mindfulness trait. These variables did not account a statistically significant amount of variance in the rational decision-making style (R2 =

.012; F =.69; p > 0.05). Lastly, the interaction effect of mindfulness and extroversion was tested on the rational decision-making style and the control variables are added in model Ⅲ to show the complete model including all the variables and their interaction effect, and thus, test the Hypothesis 2b. The results of model Ⅲ however, do not add significant explanatory power to the model (R² = .033; F =.927; p > 0.05).

To conclude, the regression analysis to examine the hypothesis 2a and 2b did not not find statistical support for the hypothesis, thus the null hypothesis is not rejected.

TABLE 3: Determinants of rational decision/making style in employees

Gender --- --- ---0.267* (0.129) R2 0.074 0.148 0.183 F 8.963* 9.664* 6.089 ΔR² 0.074 0.035 Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Intercept 4.172*** (0.268) 3.951** (0.425) 4.020*** (0.452)

(19)

N=114. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (one-tailed).

Hierarchical multiple regression results. Robust standard errors appear in parentheses. Cl = 95%

5. Discussion

This study builds further on the researched relationship between personality traits,

mindfulness, and decision-making styles, which forms the starting point for this thesis. In order to examine the effects of mindfulness on decision-making styles, different personality types must be considered as constant, independent variables. The scope of this thesis focused specifically on statistically testing the possible interaction effect of mindfulness with two different personality traits on related decision-making styles. Accordingly, two conceptual models were tested by applying mindfulness as a moderator variable into both models. Thus, this study answers the call for further research of the effects of mindfulness in the workplace. The Hypothesis 1a states that there is a positive relationship between neuroticism personality dimension and the avoidant decision-making style. In addition, hypothesis 1b was formulated, stating that mindfulness has a weakening effect on the positive relationship between neuroticism and the avoidant style of making decisions. However, the data supported only the Hypothesis 1a and no statistical support was found in this sample for the Hypothesis 1b, investigating the moderating effect of mindfulness. The data analysis confirms the predictive power of neuroticism personality type on avoidant decision-making style. However the

Extroversion −0.075 (0.077) −0.097 (0.084) −0.107 (0.085) Mindfulness --- ---0.089 (0.132) 0.168 (0.142) Extroversion x Mindfulness --- --- ---0.002 (0.159) Age --- --- ---−0.005 (0.004) Gender --- --- ---−0.061 (0.093) R2 0.008 0.012 0.033 F 0.934 0.691 0.927 ΔR² 0.004 0.021

(20)

results did not find support for the interaction effect of mindfulness and neuroticism on avoidant decision-making style. Along with support for the Hypothesis 1a, the results showed a negative correlation between mindfulness trait and the avoidant decision-making style, indicating that as one of the variables increases, the other one diminishes. Furthermore, all the variables in the first hierarchical regression analysis added explanatory power to the variance in avoidant decision-making style, neuroticism personality and mindfulness variables being the most significant variables explaining the variance in the avoidant decision-making style. More importantly, the results indicate that mindfulness is negatively correlated with the avoidant decision-making style, which was expected based on the theory. This result has important implications for future research to investigate the relationship more closely in order to derive practical applications of mindfulness to organisations. Unexpectedly, the control variable age was found to be positively correlated with mindfulness and negatively correlated with neuroticism. However, it is important to take into consideration the nature of the scales. All variables were tested with a self-assessment survey and there might be significant differences in how individuals perceive themselves in different stages of life (Gove & Geerken, 1977).

The second data analysis included the theorised positive relationship between extroversion personality trait and the rational decision-making style as Hypothesis 2a. Furthermore, the

Hypothesis 2b stated the positive relationship between extroversion and the rational decision-making style is further strengthened by mindfulness trait. However, the sample of this study did not support either one of these hypotheses, in contrast to what was expected based on current theory. The results did however show a positive relationship between extroversion and mindfulness as could be expected due to the similarities these traits share. Extroversion and mindfulness have both been linked to subjective well-being and positive emotions among individuals (Chad et al., (2007). Even so, previous research has been inconsistent in the investigation of the

extroversion-mindfulness relationship. Mindfulness has been both positively and negatively related to

extroversion personality trait (Giluk, 2009). However, the sample of this study showed a positive relationship between these two variables, which calls for deeper research into the topic.

5.1 Contributions and Implications

Prior research of the mindfulness concept has been extensively focusing on patient samples and the positive effects of mindfulness to the physical and mental health of individuals. Since the results have shown significant improvements in the well-being of patient populations in terms of

(21)

stress reduction, improved mood, and fewer physical health complaints just to mention a few (Brown et al., 2004). The study of mindfulness has recently expanded to the field of management and organisational research with goals of finding empirical evidence for the benefits of mindfulness in the workplace (Glomb et al., 2011). Furthermore, different personality dimensions and their implications for individuals have been thoroughly investigated. Prior studies have also investigated the relation of mindfulness and personality traits, and the predictive power of personalities in different decision-making styles (Riaz and Batool, 2012; Giluk, 2009). However, the majority of these studies have examined the concepts separately and more often in a qualitative manner. Thus, this thesis integrates the concepts of personality trait, mindfulness trait, and decision-making style and quantitatively investigates the relationship between these variables, specifically the moderating effect of mindfulness. This quantitative study argues for the existence of a moderating effect of mindfulness on the relationship between different personalities and their corresponding decision-making styles by developing four hypotheses based on the existing literature. Thus, the findings of this thesis contribute to the existing body of academic literature concerning mindfulness,

personality traits, and decision-making styles among employees. Even though, the research design and data failed to provide statistical evidence for the interaction effect of personality and

mindfulness on decision-making, the results of this research do contribute to the theorised relationships between decision-making styles and personality traits.

Apart from academic contributions, this thesis provides some managerial implications. The results display a negative relationship between mindfulness and the avoidant decision-making style, which implies that managers should consider introducing the concept of mindfulness to their

employees in order to reduce the negative consequences of avoidant decision-making in the workplace, such as postponing decisions, and failing to consider all relevant information without posing prejudice on different alternatives. Additionally, the findings support the theory of the negative relationship between neurotic personality and mindfulness. Thus, employees scoring high on the neuroticisms trait might find mindfulness practices especially beneficial, which has

important implications for improving the organisational culture of a firm by increasing the well-being of employees. Nonetheless, the scope of this study needs to be addressed because such a small sample size prevents the generalisability of the findings.

(22)

First, it is important to acknowledge the relatively small sample size of 120 respondents. The design of the data collection and the survey imposed difficulties. Due to the nature of this thesis, the relevant data of this study was collected as a part of a larger data collection survey, each separate question including a scale of multiple items which increased the length of the online survey substantially. Thus, the response rate was rather small. Additionally, the sampling method was convenience sampling which influences the generalisability of this study. Since the questionnaire was distributed with a group of students for The University of Amsterdam, most of the respondents are on the younger side which is not representative of the whole population. Furthermore, the relevant variables were measured with a self-rating scale and the items asked about the respondents’ perception of themselves, and their response patterns in various situations. Therefore, response bias needs to be accounted for since most individuals have a tendency to present themselves in a

favourable light to appear socially desirable or answer in a socially acceptable manner. Some of the items in the big five personality scale and the general decision-making style questionnaire are somewhat leading since the constructs such as neuroticism already has a negative connotation to it, thus respondents might feel reluctant to answer truthfully (Gove & Geerken, 1977).

Second, future studies should take into account the reliability of the sample. Sampling error, meaning the variability among statistics form different samples could be reduced by increasing the sample size and using random sampling method rather than convenience sampling. Further research is needed to establish empirical evidence for the benefits of mindfulness for employees and to suggest practical implications for organisations.

6. Conclusion

The purpose of this study is to determine the influence of mindfulness on the relationship between personality dimensions and decision-making styles. More specifically, it has been investigated whether (1) mindfulness weakens the positive relationship between neuroticism personality trait and avoidant decision-making style, and whether (2) mindfulness strengthens the positive relationship between extroversion personality trait and rational decision-making style. Along with the current literature, there is an expectation of a positive relationship between these neuroticism and avoidant decision making, and extroversion and rational decision-making. The findings of this thesis build on the existing evidence of positive relationship between neuroticism and avoidant decision style. However, the results cannot confirm the moderating effect of

(23)

study do not fit with the theory of extroversion positively predicting rational decision-making style. Before including mindfulness in organisations it is important to research the possible work related outcomes of mindfulness. However, the organisational research of mindfulness is only starting and most studies of mindfulness have be performed on a patient and student samples. Thus, it is

important to determine all the possible work related improvements mindfulness can do.

7. References

Brown, Kirk Warren,Ryan, Richard M. (2003), “The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being”

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 84(4), Apr 2003, 822-848

Brown KW, Kasser T, Ryan RM, Konow J (2004) Having and being: investigating the pathways from materialism and mindfulness to well-being. University of Rochester, New York, USA

Brown, Kirk Warren, Ryan, Richard, Creswell J.D (2007) Mindfulness: theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects.

(24)

Psychol Inq 18(4):211–237

Cardaciotto, L., Herbert, J. D., Forman, E. M., Moitra, E., & Farrow, V. (2008). The Assessment of Present-Moment Awareness and Acceptance: The Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale.

Assessment, June 2008 Vol. 15 No. 2, pp.204–223

Chad E. Lakey, W. Keith Campbell, Kirk Warren Brown, Adam S. Goodie (2007), Dispositional mindfulness as a predictor of the severity of gambling outcomes,

Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 43, Issue 7, 2007, pp. 1698-1710,

Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts build lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal resources.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1045–1062

Freeston, M. H., Rhéaume, J., Letarte, H., Dugas, M. J., & Ladouceur, R. (1994). Why do people worry? Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 17 pp. 791–802.

George Y. Wong & William M. Mason (1985) The Hierarchical Logistic Regression Model for Multilevel Analysis, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 80 No. 391, pp. 513-524,

Giluk Tamara L., Mindfulness, Big Five personality, and affect: A meta-analysis Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 47, Issue 8, 2009

Glomb Theresa M., Michelle K. Duffy, Joyce E. Bono and Tao Yang “Mindfulness at work”

Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 30), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 115-157.

Good Darren J., Christopher J. Lyddy, Theresa M. Glomb, Joyce E, Bono, Kirk Warren Brown, Michelle K. Duffy, Ruth A. Baer, Judson A. Brewer, Sara W. Lazar (2015), “Contemplating Mindfulness at Work: An integrative Review”

Journal of Management Vol. 42, No. 1, January 2016, pp. 114-142

Gu, J., Strauss, C., Crane, C., Barnhofer, T., Karl, A., Cavanagh, K., & Kuyken, W. (2016). Examining the factor structure of the 39-item and 15-item versions of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire before and after mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for people with recurrent depression.

Psychological assessment, Vol. 28, No. 7, pp. 791–802

van den Hurk Paul A. M., Tom Wingens, Fabio Giommi, Henk P. Barendregt, Anne F. M. Speckens, Hein T. van Schie (2011), “On the relationship between the practice of mindfulness meditation and personality - an exploratory analysis of the mediating role of mindfulness skills”

Institute for Computing and information Sciences, Radbound University Nijmegen, Published 18. June 2011 James J. Walsh, Marc G. Balint, David R. Smolira SJ, Line Kamstrup Fredericksen, Stine Madsen,

Predicting individual differences in mindfulness: The role of trait anxiety, attachment anxiety and attentional control, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 46, Issue 2, 2009, pp. 94-99, ISSN 0191-8869

Lommen Miriam J.J., Iris M. Engelhard, Marcel A. van den Hout (2010), “Neuroticism and Avoidance of ambiguous stimuli: Better safe than sorry?”

Personality and Individual Differences Volume 49, issue 8, 2012, pp. 1001-1006 Loosemore M. (1998), “Organisational behaviour during a construction crisis”

International Journal of Project Management Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 115-121, 1998

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. P. (1994). Validity of observer ratings of the big five personality factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 272–280

Nygren, T. E., & White, R. J. (2005). Relating Decision Making Styles to Predicting Selfefficacy and a Generalized Expectation of Success and Failure.

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting

Pickett Scott M., Craig S. Lodis, Michele R. Parkhill, Holly K. Orcutt (2011), “Personality and experiential avoidance: A model of anxiety sensitivity

(25)

Reb Jochen & Paul W.B. Atkins (2015), “Mindfulness in Organisations, Foundations, Research, and Application”, Cambridge Companions to Management

Riaz Muhammad Naveed & Batool Naila (2012) “Personality types as predictors of Decision Making Styles” Journal of Behavioural Science, Vol. 22, No. 2.

Richard M. Ryan, Christopher P. Niemiec, Todd B. Kashdan, Willian E. Breen, Kirk Warren Brown, Philip J. Cozzolino, Chantal Levesque-Bristol, (2010), “Being present in the face of existential threat: the role of trait mindfulness in reducing defensive responses to mortality salience”

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2010, Vol 99, No. 2, 344-365

Sala Margarita, Catherine Rochefort, P. Priscilla Lui & Austin S. Baldwin (2019) Trait mindfulness and health behaviours: a meta-analysis

Health Psychology Review

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-Making Style: The Development and Assessment of a New Measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 818–831

Schwartz, B., Ben-Haim, Y. and Dacso, C. (2011), What Makes a Good Decision? Robust Satisficing as a Normative Standard of Rational Decision Making.

Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 41: 209-227

Shoemaker M.E. (1999) Leadership practices in sales managers associated with the self-efficacy, role clarity and job satisfaction of individual industrial salespeople,

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19 (4) (1999), pp. 1-19

Shrivastava, P. and Mitroff, I.I. (1987) Strategic Management Of Corporate Crises. Columbia Journal Of World Business. Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 5-11

Smith Denis (2000), Crisis Management Teams: Issues in the Management of operational crises”, Risk Management, Vol 2, No. 3, pp. 61-78

Veil, S. R. (2011). Mindful Learning in Crisis Management.

The Journal of Business Communication (1973), Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 116–147

Walter R. Gove and Michael R. Geerken (1977) Response Bias in Surveys of Mental Health: An Empirical Investigation.

American Journal of Sociology 1977 Vol. 82 No. 6, pp. 1289-1317

(26)

1. Reliability of the decision-making scale 2. Reliability of the Mindfulness scale

3. Reliability of the Big Five Personality scale

(27)

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

employment potential/ OR ((employab* ADJ4 (relat* OR outcome* OR predictor* OR antecedent* OR correlat* OR effect* OR signific* OR associat* OR variable* OR measure* OR assess*

The expansion of the definition of transhumanism to include a more critical aspect that looks beyond humanism, and a closer inspection of the game’s narrative by including the

De incidentie onder -jarige vrouwen leek te stijgen vanaf , maar deze verandering hing samen met het verla- gen van de onderste leeftijdsgrens van  naar 

In this study I will focus on the three personality dimensions extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience and their expected effect on their

For investment, insurance, debt and durable goods saving the average marginal effects of the two-way probit regression with Mundlak fixed effects will be reported in order to

Table 6 Regression results of the moderation effects of the extraversion trait on the relationship between happiness (subjective well-being, happiness and life satisfaction) and

A negative moderating effect of neuroticism and conscientiousness was revealed on the positive association between perceived peer income and the likelihood of

by Popov. 5 To generalize Popov’s diffusion model for the evapora- tion process of ouzo drops with more than one component, we take account of Raoult’s law, which is necessary